Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 03-31-2013, 04:17 PM

Valentinus (in Clement Strom 2.74.1)

Quote:

And Valentinus appears also in an epistle to have adopted such views. For he writes in these very words: And as terror fell on the angels at this creature, because he uttered things greater than proceeded from his formation, by reason of the being in him who had invisibly communicated a germ of the supernal essence, and who spoke with free utterance; so also among the tribes of men in the world, the works of men became terrors to those who made them—as, for example, images and statues. And the hands of all fashion things to bear the name of God: for Adam formed into the name of man inspired the dread attaching to the pre-existent man, as having his being in him; and they were terror-stricken, and speedily marred the work.

Valentinus (ibid 4.90.3)

Quote:

Respecting this God, he makes those allusions when writing in these expressions: As much as the image is inferior to the living face, so much is the world inferior to the living Æon. What is, then, the cause of the image? The majesty of the face, which exhibits the figure to the painter, to be honoured by his name; for the form is not found exactly to the life, but the name supplies what is wanting in the effigy. The invisibility of God co-operates also in order to the faith of that which has been fashioned. For the Creator, called God and Father, he designated as Painter, and Wisdom, whose image that which is formed is, to the glory of the invisible One; since the things which proceed from a pair are complements, and those which proceed from one are images. But since what is seen is no part of Him, the soul comes from what is intermediate, which is different; and this is the inspiration of the different spirit, and generally what is breathed into the soul, which is the image of the spirit. And in general, what is said of the Creator, who was made according to the image, they say was foretold by a sensible image in the book of Genesis respecting the origin of man; and the likeness they transfer to themselves, teaching that the addition of the different spirit was made; unknown to the Creator.

stephan huller · 03-31-2013, 07:57 PM

While it is not exactly perfect for our purposes Cyprian of Carthage Epistle 73 reinforces the idea that baptism is a second birth and a second creation. If we assume that the first creation was established by 'the Lord' (= Yahweh) in Genesis, we can begin to see that baptism is the second creation by Jesus:

Quote:

For first God formed him, and then breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. For the Spirit cannot be received, unless he who receives first have an existence. But as the birth of Christians is in baptism, while the generation and sanctification of baptism are with the spouse of Christ alone, who is able spiritually to conceive and to bear sons to God, where and of whom and to whom is he born, who is not a son of the Church, so as that he should have God as his Father, before he has had the Church for his Mother? But as no heresy at all, and equally no schism, being without, can have the sanctification of saving baptism, why has the bitter obstinacy of our brother Stephen broken forth to such an extent, as to contend that sons are born to God from the baptism of Marcion; moreover, of Valentinus and Apelles, and of others who blaspheme against God the Father; and to say that remission of sins is granted in the name of Jesus Christ where blasphemy is uttered against the Father and against Christ the Lord God? [Epistle 73]

stephan huller · 03-31-2013, 09:54 PM

With respect to Marcion attention paid to 'the Lord' rather the 'Lord God' of the manuscripts:

Quote:

For if he (= the Lord) had intervened he would have cancelled that freedom of choice which in reason and goodness he had granted. In fact, suppose him to have intervened, suppose him to have cancelled that freedom of choice, by calling the man away from the tree, by keeping that deceiver the serpent away from converse with the woman, would not Marcion call out, 'Look at that Lord and Master, so unstable, so inconsistent and untrustworthy, cancelling appointments he himself has made.'" [Against Marcion 2.7]

Genesis 3:9 "And the Lord God called Adam and said to him, Adam, where art thou?" (LXX and Masoretic)

stephan huller · 03-31-2013, 10:30 PM

The best argument yet to compliment the Marcionite understand - associated with the heretic Hermogenes. Tertullian begins by noting:

Quote:

He (Hermogenes) does not appear to acknowledge any other Christ as Lord, though he holds Him in a different way; but by this difference in his faith he really makes Him another being,-nay, he takes from Him everything which is God, since he will not have it that He made all things of nothing. For, turning away from Christians to the philosophers, from the Church to the Academy and the Porch, he learned there from the Stoics how to place Matter (on the same level) with the Lord, just as if it too had existed ever both unborn and unmade, having no beginning at all nor end, out of which, according to him,14 the Lord afterwards created all things.[Against Hermogenes 1.1]

Then Tertullian's next point about Hermogenes:

Quote:

Our very bad painter has coloured this his primary shade absolutely without any light, with such arguments as these: He begins with laying down the premiss,15 that the Lord made all things either out of Himself, or out of nothing, or out of something; in order that, after he has shown that it was impossible for Him to have made them either out of Himself or out of nothing, he might thence affirm the residuary proposition that He made them out of something, and therefore that that something was Matter. He could not have made all things, he says, of Himself; because whatever things the Lord made of Himself would have been parts of Himself; but16 He is not dissoluble into parts,17 , because, being the Lord, He is indivisible, and unchangeable, and always the same. [ibid 1.2]

and again:

Quote:

He accordingly concludes that He made nothing out of Himself, since He never passed into such a condition21 as made it possible for Him to make anything out of Himself. In like manner, he contends that He could not have made all things out of nothing-thus: He defines the Lord as a being who is good, nay, very good, who must will to make things as good and excellent as He is Himself; indeed it were impossible for Him either to will or to make anything which was not good, nay, very good itself. Therefore all things ought to have been made good and excellent by Him, after His own condition. Experience shows,22 however, that things which are even evil were made by Him: not, of course, of His own will and pleasure; because, if it had been of His own will and pleasure, He would be sure to have made nothing unfitting or unworthy of Himself. That, therefore, which He made not of His own will must be understood to have been made from the fault of something, and that is from Matter, without a doubt. [ibid]

Why do we care so much about this? Because of Tertullian's repeated emphasis that 'the Lord' rather than 'God' is being discussed here. Hermogenes certainly had a copy of Genesis which referenced 'the Lord' as being wholly responsible for the Creation narrative (Genesis 1 - 4) because of what Tertullian says in what immediately follows:

Quote:

He adds also another point: that as God was always God, there was never a time when God was not also Lord. But it was in no way possible for Him to be regarded as always Lord, in the same manner as He had been always God, if there had not been always, in the previous eternity, a something of which He could be regarded as evermore the Lord. So he concludes that God always had Matter co-existent with Himself as the Lord thereof. Now, this tissue26 of his I shall at once hasten to pull abroad. I have been willing to set it out in form to this length, for the information of those who are unacquainted with the subject, that they may know that his other arguments likewise need only be27 understood to be refuted. We affirm, then, that the name of God always existed with Himself and in Himself-but not eternally so the Lord. Because the condition of the one is not the same as that of the other. God is the designation of the substance itself, that is, of the Divinity; but Lord is (the name) not of substance, but of power. I maintain that the substance existed always with its own name, which is God; the title Lord was afterwards added, as the indication indeed28 of something accruing. For from the moment when those things began to exist, over which the power of a Lord was to act, God, by the accession of that power, both became Lord and received the name thereof. Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as He became the Father by the Son, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him. Do I seem to you to be weaving arguments,29 Hermogenes? how neatly does Scripture lend us its aid,30 when it applies the two titles to Him with a distinction, and reveals them each at its proper time! For (the title ) God, indeed, which always belonged to Him, it names at the very first: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth; "31 and as long as He continued making, one after the other, those things of which He was to be the Lord, it merely mentions God. "And God said," "and God made," "and God saw; "32 but nowhere do we yet find the Lord. But when He completed the whole creation, and especially man himself, who was destined to understand His sovereignty in a way of special propriety, He then is designated33 Lord. Then also the Scripture added the name Lord: "And the Lord God, Deus Dominus, took the man, whom He had formed; "34 "And the Lord God commanded Adam."35 Thenceforth He, who was previously God only, is the Lord, from the time of His having something of which He might be the Lord. For to Himself He was always God, but to all things was He only then God, when He became also Lord. Therefore, in as far as (Hermogenes) shall suppose that Matter was eternal, on the ground that the Lord was eternal, in so far will it be evident that nothing existed, because it is plain that the Lord as such did not always exist. Now I mean also, on my own part,36 to add a remark for the sake of ignorant persons, of whom Hermogenes is an extreme instance,37 and actually to retort against him his own arguments.38 For when he denies that Matter was born or made, I find that, even on these terms, the title Lord is unsuitable to God in respect of Matter, because it must have been free,39 when by not having a beginning it had not an author. The fact of its past existence it owed to no one, so that it could be a subject to no one. Therefore ever since God exercised His power over it, by creating (all things) out of Matter, although it had all along experienced God as its Lord, yet Matter does, after all, demonstrate that God did not exist in the relation of Lord to it,40 although all the while He was really so [ibid 1:3]

And then finally - to demonstrate that Hermogenes is indeed saying that the Lord rather than God was named throughout the Creation narrative:

Quote:

He cannot say that it was as its Lord that God employed Matter for His creative works, for He could not have been the Lord of a substance which was co-equal with Himself. Well, but perhaps it was a title derived from the will of another,80 which he enjoyed-a precarious holding, and not a lordship,81 and that to such a degree, that82 although Matter was evil, He yet endured to make use of an evil substance, owing, of course, to the restraint of His own limited power,83 which made Him impotent to create out of nothing, not in consequence of His power; for if, as God, He had at all possessed power over Matter which He knew to be evil, He would first have converted it into good-as its Lord and the good God-that so He might have a good thing to make use of, instead of a bad one. But being undoubtedly good, only not the Lord withal, He, by using such power84 as He possessed, showed the necessity He was under of yielding to the condition of Matter, which He would have amended if He had been its Lord. Now this is the answer which must be given to Hermogenes when he maintains that it was by virtue of His Lordship that God used Matter-even of His non-possession of any right to it, on the ground, of course, of His not having Himself made it. Evil then, on your terms,85 must proceed from God Himself, since He is-I will not say the Author of evil, because He did not form it, but-the permitter thereof, as having dominion over it.86 If indeed Matter shall prove not even to belong to God at all, as being evil, it follows,87 that when He made use of what belonged to another, He used it either on a precarious title88 because He was in need of it, or else by violent possession because He was stronger than it. For by three methods is the property of others obtained,-by right, by permission, by violence; in other words, by lordship, by a title derived from the will of another,89 by force. Now, as lordship is out of the question, Hermogenes must choose which (of the other methods) is suitable to God. Did He, then, make all things out of Matter, by permission, or by force? But, in truth, would not God have more wisely determined that nothing at all should be created, than that it should be created by the mere sufferance of another, or by violence, and that, too, with90 a substance which was evil? [ibid 9]

Hermogenes point seems to be that it was the Lord rather than God who created the world and undoubtedly Adam - a point shared by Marcion in our reconstruction. This must have been based on a variant text of Genesis (which resembled Jubilees which has 'Lord' consistently throughout and the Apocalypse of Adam etc).

jakejonesiv · 04-01-2013, 12:31 AM

The readers (if there are any) deserve a link to the text of the Marcionite Myth described by Eznik of Kolb.

In "Refutation of the Sects" (441-449 CE), Book IV, Eznik of Kolb, the fifth century Armenian philosopher describes a forgotten Marcionite myth.
Roger Pearse very kindly supplies it for us here.
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/sc...refutation.htm
You will have to scroll way down to BOOK IV Refutation of the Heretic Marcion.

MARCION'S VIEWS AS RELATED BY YEZNIK (4.1)

As is well known, Marcion strayed by introducing another God into his doctrine. He opposed this God both to Matter and to the Lord of Creation, who was revealed in the Old Testament and who created the universe and set out the laws.

jakejonesiv · 04-01-2013, 12:49 AM

Let the text speak for itself.

"They say that the Unknown God, the God of Love, who was in the first heaven, was hurt by seeing so many souls suffering at the hands of the two imposters: Matter and the Lord of Creation. Therefore, the Unknown God sent His Son to work miracles and cure the blind and foresaw that men would be jealous and crucify him. He also knew that once crucified and buried as mortal, His Son would descend into Hell and empty it by freeing the souls which had been cast there by the Lord of the Laws and Creation."

Refutation of the Sects (441-449 CE), Book IV, Eznik of Kolb, the fifth century Armenian philosopher

jakejonesiv · 04-01-2013, 01:01 AM

According to the Marcionite myth (See Eznik), the Lord of Creation (the Creator or Demiurge) created human beings and in a sense owned them. So Jesus fooled the Demiurge. The Pauline myth and the Marcionite myth are in congruence, Jesus came incognito and was put to death unjustly by the Demiurge and his minions. "which none of the Archons of this Aeon knew; for if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." 1 Cor. 2:8.

Now for the Christology of Marcion.
But he emptied himself and took the form (morphēn) of a slave
Being found in appearance (omoiōmati) and shape (schēmati) as a man
He humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Phillipians 2:7-8.

According to Tertullian, Marcion based his docetism precisely on this passage in Philippians 2.

Here, Christ is a docetic being, who only has the appearance, shape, and form of a man, but is not actually a man! It is a form that does not correspond to reality. This is also in view in Romans 8:3. Jesus came docetically only in the likeness of sinful flesh (there was no other kind in Romans).

jakejonesiv · 04-01-2013, 01:04 AM

The Gnostics often conceived of the Demiurge as a lesser god, one of the creator angels. Here is a single example. Basilides taught (as reported by Irenaeus); “Those angels who occupy the lowest heaven, that, namely, which is visible to us, formed all the things which are in the world, and made allotments among themselves of the earth and of those nations which are upon it. The chief of them is he who is thought to be the God of the Jews; and inasmuch as he desired to render the other nations subject to his own people, that is, the Jews, all the other princes resisted and opposed him. Wherefore all other nations were at enmity with his nation.” AH 1.24.4.

We see very much the same suspicion of angels in the Marcionite Rescension of the Pauline Epistles. We find the warning not believe even "an angel from heaven" if it contradicts the Pauline gospel (Gal. 1:8). The Law was given by angels (Gal 3:19), and the Ten Commandments are "the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones" 2 Cor. 3:7.

jakejonesiv · 04-01-2013, 01:11 AM

Let the text speak for itself.

And indeed, after the Son was crucified, he descended into Hell and freed the captive souls and took them to heaven with His Father, the God of Love. Thereupon, the Lord of Creation grew angry and darkened the skies and dressed the world in black.

The second time Jesus descended in the form of God, he opened a case against the Lord of Creation for having put him to death. When the Lord of Creation saw the Godliness of Jesus, he knew that there was a God higher than himself. Jesus leveled his charges against the Lord of Creation and demanded that the Laws which the Lord of Creation had written be the judge in their case.

jakejonesiv · 04-01-2013, 01:22 AM

Let the text speak. According to the Marcionites, only Paul knew the truth by revelation.

This is what the Pauline Epistles say, this is what the Church Fathers say, this is what the myth of Eznik says.

Seeing that he had been condemned by his own laws for killing Jesus, the Lord of Creation pleaded that he had killed Jesus unknowingly and offered in retribution to give Jesus all those who believe in him to take where he pleased. After Jesus left the Lord of Creation, he appeared to Paul. He revealed to his apostle the compensation, and thereafter, Paul preached that Jesus "redeemed us for a price." This, then, is the basis of Marcion's doctrine as we have come to know it. Eznik of Kolb

"With regard to those (the Marcionites) who allege that Paul alone knew the truth, and that to him the mystery was manifested by revelation, ..." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:13:1.

The epistle to the Galatians, chapter 1, starts with a demand that Paul had exclusively the true gospel by revelation.

Galatians 1
1. Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)
8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
11. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
15. But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
16. To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17. Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me;

04-01-2013, 12:31 AM	#15
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	The readers (if there are any) deserve a link to the text of the Marcionite Myth described by Eznik of Kolb. In "Refutation of the Sects" (441-449 CE), Book IV, Eznik of Kolb, the fifth century Armenian philosopher describes a forgotten Marcionite myth. Roger Pearse very kindly supplies it for us here. http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/sc...refutation.htm You will have to scroll way down to BOOK IV Refutation of the Heretic Marcion. MARCION'S VIEWS AS RELATED BY YEZNIK (4.1) As is well known, Marcion strayed by introducing another God into his doctrine. He opposed this God both to Matter and to the Lord of Creation, who was revealed in the Old Testament and who created the universe and set out the laws.

04-01-2013, 12:49 AM	#16
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	Let the text speak for itself. "They say that the Unknown God, the God of Love, who was in the first heaven, was hurt by seeing so many souls suffering at the hands of the two imposters: Matter and the Lord of Creation. Therefore, the Unknown God sent His Son to work miracles and cure the blind and foresaw that men would be jealous and crucify him. He also knew that once crucified and buried as mortal, His Son would descend into Hell and empty it by freeing the souls which had been cast there by the Lord of the Laws and Creation." Refutation of the Sects (441-449 CE), Book IV, Eznik of Kolb, the fifth century Armenian philosopher

04-01-2013, 01:11 AM	#19
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	Let the text speak for itself. And indeed, after the Son was crucified, he descended into Hell and freed the captive souls and took them to heaven with His Father, the God of Love. Thereupon, the Lord of Creation grew angry and darkened the skies and dressed the world in black. The second time Jesus descended in the form of God, he opened a case against the Lord of Creation for having put him to death. When the Lord of Creation saw the Godliness of Jesus, he knew that there was a God higher than himself. Jesus leveled his charges against the Lord of Creation and demanded that the Laws which the Lord of Creation had written be the judge in their case.

04-01-2013, 01:22 AM	#20
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	Let the text speak. According to the Marcionites, only Paul knew the truth by revelation. This is what the Pauline Epistles say, this is what the Church Fathers say, this is what the myth of Eznik says. Seeing that he had been condemned by his own laws for killing Jesus, the Lord of Creation pleaded that he had killed Jesus unknowingly and offered in retribution to give Jesus all those who believe in him to take where he pleased. After Jesus left the Lord of Creation, he appeared to Paul. He revealed to his apostle the compensation, and thereafter, Paul preached that Jesus "redeemed us for a price." This, then, is the basis of Marcion's doctrine as we have come to know it. Eznik of Kolb "With regard to those (the Marcionites) who allege that Paul alone knew the truth, and that to him the mystery was manifested by revelation, ..." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:13:1. The epistle to the Galatians, chapter 1, starts with a demand that Paul had exclusively the true gospel by revelation. Galatians 1 1. Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead) 8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. 11. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. 15. But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, 16. To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 17. Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me;

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-01-2013, 01:01 AM	#17
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	According to the Marcionite myth (See Eznik), the Lord of Creation (the Creator or Demiurge) created human beings and in a sense owned them. So Jesus fooled the Demiurge. The Pauline myth and the Marcionite myth are in congruence, Jesus came incognito and was put to death unjustly by the Demiurge and his minions. "which none of the Archons of this Aeon knew; for if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." 1 Cor. 2:8. Now for the Christology of Marcion. But he emptied himself and took the form (morphēn) of a slave Being found in appearance (omoiōmati) and shape (schēmati) as a man He humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Phillipians 2:7-8. According to Tertullian, Marcion based his docetism precisely on this passage in Philippians 2. Here, Christ is a docetic being, who only has the appearance, shape, and form of a man, but is not actually a man! It is a form that does not correspond to reality. This is also in view in Romans 8:3. Jesus came docetically only in the likeness of sinful flesh (there was no other kind in Romans).

04-01-2013, 01:04 AM	#18
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	The Gnostics often conceived of the Demiurge as a lesser god, one of the creator angels. Here is a single example. Basilides taught (as reported by Irenaeus); “Those angels who occupy the lowest heaven, that, namely, which is visible to us, formed all the things which are in the world, and made allotments among themselves of the earth and of those nations which are upon it. The chief of them is he who is thought to be the God of the Jews; and inasmuch as he desired to render the other nations subject to his own people, that is, the Jews, all the other princes resisted and opposed him. Wherefore all other nations were at enmity with his nation.” AH 1.24.4. We see very much the same suspicion of angels in the Marcionite Rescension of the Pauline Epistles. We find the warning not believe even "an angel from heaven" if it contradicts the Pauline gospel (Gal. 1:8). The Law was given by angels (Gal 3:19), and the Ten Commandments are "the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones" 2 Cor. 3:7.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.